i wish pvp wouldve just stayed a fps thing trying to force it in to the mmo genre has been nothing but a disaster.
keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate!
What you are saying is something like " I wish there was no war in middle earth"
or "Klingons were actually hippies"
These wars are the base building material for many many great stories in fantasy worlds.
nope, npc's handle those thing just fine. its the players in pvp that makes it suck
ok.
In racing simulators for example ,peeps thinks that it is cool to compete agains other players and its just about cars.
In MMOs where we drive brutal barbarians and warlocks and such ,we are shooting rainbows from our eyes and love letters out of our noses against other players .
Why do people think that is should be like that ,where do they get that idea?
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Originally posted by flizzer You have to remember some of these open world pvpers want to be able to jump on lower level players that don't have a chance. I think that is the whole point of open world pvp. I'll stay far away from these type of games , thank you.
Fixed. Don't lump us all into the same group because of a few bad experiences. I tend to leave low levels alone unless they're being stupid and trying to attack me or one of my low level friends (at this point, wasting their sorry ass is perfectly fine)
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
Originally posted by TribeofOne i wish pvp wouldve just stayed a fps thing trying to force it in to the mmo genre has been nothing but a disaster.keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate!
What you are saying is something like " I wish there was no war in middle earth"or "Klingons were actually hippies"
I happen to agree with TribeofOne here. Middle Earth is a book setting, not an MMO. Yes, The Lord of the Rings has been created into an MMO, quite different from the books. Gimli never beat Legolas about the head and shoulders. It was based on "The Fellowship" working together to defeat the big bad evil Sauron, not picking fights amongst themselves. The Klingon part makes no sense to me. Hippies and PvP work out how?
PvP, in my small mind, brings very little to the game play and causes a lot of grief. Class balance is now much more important and every character becomes homogenized because of PvP. Having to constantly look over my shoulder is not what I seek in MMOs. Others will differ greatly on this point, though.
I have encountered very few PvP players that actually "seek the almighty challenge" they often say they seek. Instead, the PvP player community is riddled with players who seek not a challenge, but rather a weaker opponent to kill. Weaker than the AI opponents found in MMOs. A lot of PvP players do not seek equality in a fight, but rather advantages that tip the scales in their favor be it gear, level, injured opponents, or numbers (gangs).
For me, MMOs are all about working together with other players, not against them. I also realize that many players like PvP and want that in their MMOs. In my opinion, PvP is just too toxic for what it brings to the game.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by TribeofOne i wish pvp wouldve just stayed a fps thing trying to force it in to the mmo genre has been nothing but a disaster.
keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate!
What you are saying is something like " I wish there was no war in middle earth"
or "Klingons were actually hippies"
I happen to agree with TribeofOne here. Middle Earth is a book setting, not an MMO. Yes, The Lord of the Rings has been created into an MMO, quite different from the books. Gimli never beat Legolas about the head and shoulders. It was based on "The Fellowship" working together to defeat the big bad evil Sauron, not picking fights amongst themselves. The Klingon part makes no sense to me. Hippies and PvP work out how?
PvP, in my small mind, brings very little to the game play and causes a lot of grief. Class balance is now much more important and every character becomes homogenized because of PvP. Having to constantly look over my shoulder is not what I seek in MMOs. Others will differ greatly on this point, though.
I have encountered very few PvP players that actually "seek the almighty challenge" they often say they seek. Instead, the PvP player community is riddled with players who seek not a challenge, but rather a weaker opponent to kill. Weaker than the AI opponents found in MMOs. A lot of PvP players do not seek equality in a fight, but rather advantages that tip the scales in their favor be it gear, level, injured opponents, or numbers (gangs).
For me, MMOs are all about working together with other players, not against them. I also realize that many players like PvP and want that in their MMOs. In my opinion, PvP is just too toxic for what it brings to the game.
Its called opposite faction in many games / universe.
If Jedis and Siths "can" work together in your universe,so be it.
no its not just that they "can" in MMOs ,they are forced to.
I really dont care by myself about griefing because then someone is just at the wrong place at the wrong time,just like they are in fantasy literature or movies and such,what you are dreaming is somekind of world where everybody is at the right place at the right time,i think christians call it heaven.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Originally posted by TribeofOne i wish pvp wouldve just stayed a fps thing trying to force it in to the mmo genre has been nothing but a disaster.keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate!
What you are saying is something like " I wish there was no war in middle earth"or "Klingons were actually hippies"
I happen to agree with TribeofOne here. Middle Earth is a book setting, not an MMO. Yes, The Lord of the Rings has been created into an MMO, quite different from the books. Gimli never beat Legolas about the head and shoulders. It was based on "The Fellowship" working together to defeat the big bad evil Sauron, not picking fights amongst themselves. The Klingon part makes no sense to me. Hippies and PvP work out how?PvP, in my small mind, brings very little to the game play and causes a lot of grief. Class balance is now much more important and every character becomes homogenized because of PvP. Having to constantly look over my shoulder is not what I seek in MMOs. Others will differ greatly on this point, though.I have encountered very few PvP players that actually "seek the almighty challenge" they often say they seek. Instead, the PvP player community is riddled with players who seek not a challenge, but rather a weaker opponent to kill. Weaker than the AI opponents found in MMOs. A lot of PvP players do not seek equality in a fight, but rather advantages that tip the scales in their favor be it gear, level, injured opponents, or numbers (gangs).For me, MMOs are all about working together with other players, not against them. I also realize that many players like PvP and want that in their MMOs. In my opinion, PvP is just too toxic for what it brings to the game.
Its called opposite faction in many games.If Jedis and Siths can work together in your universe,so be it.
I must be out of it today. What does factions have to do with PvP? AI Mobs can be of opposing factions, too, and are created for that very purpose. In Star Wars, I fight the evil Sith without fighting other players just fine. What is wrong with the Jedi's working together against the Sith NPCS?
Why must there be opposing faction players that you have to fight (usually when there is an advantage towards you)?
Answer me this: Do you attack players who are better equipped than you? How about of a higher level? Will you jump on gangs of 2 or 3 other players to "test yourself" and your abilities? Will you let a player opponent heal up from a previous fight before attacking?
If you answered yes to the above, you are a rare PvP player. If you answered no, than I wonder why you want to PvP.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I an mostly a PvE player. There are some good PvP games out there (War Thunder being one of them). I don't like to see PvP and PvE on the same server as it ALWAYS leads to balancing problems. Griefing is another PvP pronlem because human nature being what it is people are going to gank and grief other players. War games and shooters are great PvP genres. I prefer PvE for fantasy games.
When you start placing restrictions to PvP, is it truly open world anymore?
Nope.
Open pvp should be open. let the players punish griefers. Open pvp makes a game more complex, your allies mean something and how you treat others will always come back you.
Nothing like seeing a zerg break from with in and a new top ally form to break up again hehe.
That's also why I've always believe that Open PvP games aren't Solo games. Its best to run as a group and get into a guild.
That way, if someone ganks you, can can track their sorry butts down in-game and: crap on their lawn, kick the vanity kitty pet, skin their mount, and toilet paper their house.
Afterwards, you can bind camp them and force them to rage quit.
Inside the mind of an open world PvP player.......
Ultimately, FFA Open world PvP is about making the other players stop PvPing as this is the only way to win.
Here we go with the winning again. If you win a PvP MMO is it over? Does everyone pack up their swords and battleaxes and go home?
Sheesh don't let the devs know this!!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by TribeofOne i wish pvp wouldve just stayed a fps thing trying to force it in to the mmo genre has been nothing but a disaster.
keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate!
What you are saying is something like " I wish there was no war in middle earth"
or "Klingons were actually hippies"
I happen to agree with TribeofOne here. Middle Earth is a book setting, not an MMO. Yes, The Lord of the Rings has been created into an MMO, quite different from the books. Gimli never beat Legolas about the head and shoulders. It was based on "The Fellowship" working together to defeat the big bad evil Sauron, not picking fights amongst themselves. The Klingon part makes no sense to me. Hippies and PvP work out how?
PvP, in my small mind, brings very little to the game play and causes a lot of grief. Class balance is now much more important and every character becomes homogenized because of PvP. Having to constantly look over my shoulder is not what I seek in MMOs. Others will differ greatly on this point, though.
I have encountered very few PvP players that actually "seek the almighty challenge" they often say they seek. Instead, the PvP player community is riddled with players who seek not a challenge, but rather a weaker opponent to kill. Weaker than the AI opponents found in MMOs. A lot of PvP players do not seek equality in a fight, but rather advantages that tip the scales in their favor be it gear, level, injured opponents, or numbers (gangs).
For me, MMOs are all about working together with other players, not against them. I also realize that many players like PvP and want that in their MMOs. In my opinion, PvP is just too toxic for what it brings to the game.
Its called opposite faction in many games.
If Jedis and Siths can work together in your universe,so be it.
I must be out of it today. What does factions have to do with PvP? AI Mobs can be of opposing factions, too, and are created for that very purpose. In Star Wars, I fight the evil Sith without fighting other players just fine. What is wrong with the Jedi's working together against the Sith NPCS?
Why must there be opposing faction players that you have to fight (usually when there is an advantage towards you)?
Answer me this: a)Do you attack players who are better equipped than you? b)How about of a higher level? c)Will you jump on gangs of 2 or 3 other players to "test yourself" and your abilities? d)Will you let a player opponent heal up from a previous fight before attacking?
If you answered yes to the above, you are a rare PvP player. If you answered no, than I wonder why you want to PvP.
a,b,c,d i only PvP when i have reason for it,doesnt matter if there is 10000 players with better equipment against.
Point is the reason,which can be that im a jedi and opponents are siths.
*but the problem is that even in single player games i have a chance to choose ,but in MMOs i have only one option.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Originally posted by PAL-18 a,b,c,d i only PvP when i have reason for it,doesnt matter if there is 10000 players with better equipment against.Point is the reason,which can be that im a jedi and opponents are siths.
I can understand that. I just do not need other players to have that reason.
One thing that always bugged me about City of Heroes was the massive amounts of crime happening on the streets. If I truly roleplayed, I would never have gotten to my missions as I helped every NPC getting mugged. I had to use selective blinders to get anywhere
Do you attack every Sith player you come across, or do you also use selective blinders? I do realize that intelligence factors in, too. No sense in dieing to a far superior opponent when one can just move on and improve themselves to fight at a later time
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by PAL-18 a,b,c,d i only PvP when i have reason for it,doesnt matter if there is 10000 players with better equipment against.
Point is the reason,which can be that im a jedi and opponents are siths.
I can understand that. I just do not need other players to have that reason.
a)One thing that always bugged me about City of Heroes was the massive amounts of crime happening on the streets. If I truly roleplayed, I would never have gotten to my missions as I helped every NPC getting mugged. I had to use selective blinders to get anywhere
b)Do you attack every Sith player you come across, or do you also use selective blinders? I do realize that intelligence factors in, too. No sense in dieing to a far superior opponent when one can just move on and improve themselves to fight at a later time
b) in really good MMORPG if i see some sith attacking our Jedi base. i would think like,he must be prepared because he is doing what he is doing,so maybe wait backup ,or let them stay here and i will attack their base and such but there is no many games like this where they allow people to think because its been decided in advance that we are supposed to fight or in worst case help each other
a)haa ,imagine if those NPC were played by real people,but lets call it positive PvP,sad thing is that there is no players who needs help because theres no negative PvP.
I think it feels better to help real people than computers :>
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Originally posted by AlBQuirky When you start placing restrictions to PvP, is it truly open world anymore?
Well if it's a flag system it's still open world pvp. Atleast those who are into PVP can have their fun. Those who want to grief or slay another player 30 levels below them arn't really pvp players so no worries about them.
Maybe I am wrong here, but when I see "Open World PvP" I think "Attack anyone anywhere." Once you start placing restrictions on that premise, it fails to be open world PvP. Am I misunderstanding the term/feature?
Open world pvp means pvp anywhere. Free for all means attack anyone. They're two separate conditionals. You can have open world pvp with target restrictions. You can have FFA with location restrictions.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky When you start placing restrictions to PvP, is it truly open world anymore?
Well if it's a flag system it's still open world pvp. Atleast those who are into PVP can have their fun. Those who want to grief or slay another player 30 levels below them arn't really pvp players so no worries about them.
Maybe I am wrong here, but when I see "Open World PvP" I think "Attack anyone anywhere." Once you start placing restrictions on that premise, it fails to be open world PvP. Am I misunderstanding the term/feature?
Open world pvp means pvp anywhere. Free for all means attack anyone. They're two separate conditionals. You can have open world pvp with target restrictions. You can have FFA with location restrictions.
I think only non pvp area should be someones house
The only thing that helps against ganking and it's consequences is the fear of getting ganked yourself. Mutual assured destruction, nuclear detterence, you name it.
All other things, like level ranges, enabling/disabling PVP for this char etc. not only limit the FFA open world PVP, which kinda defeats it's purpose, but also is not really working, because people will abuse it, and the ones truly seeking a challenge get shafted, too.
The only problem with this is that there always has to be someone who steps on the initial attackers toes, no matter who attacks who. And the bigger the injustice, the bigger the revenge has to be. If two guys who PVP regularly, and killed each other in different wars before fight, someone will end up dead. No hard feelings. If one side starts to ambush people who PVP, it's time for your guild and/or the law (if there is a player faction representing the law) to punish this. If someone who never even wielded a weapon gets killed, the whole server, even usually neutral sides have to punish it. If it ends up with the attacker being kicked from his guild, good. If he does it again and again, make *him* ragequit.
This is the only way (currently) that people that do not want to PVP can live with true FFA open world PVP. No hard limits, you can attack anyone at any time (except maybe safe zones, but if there is something like law enforcement with a strong presence in places that should be safe, you wouldn't even need that), but you better think at least twice before actually doing so, as it may be you who ragequits soon enough otherwise.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Why didn't developpers fixed this open world PvP problem of ganking lower level players by simply : Not allowing a character to engage combat onto another character if this one has no chance of winning.
Because that makes no goddamn sense?
It's a valid design decision for any given game, but it takes away from immersion quite considerably, personally.
If you are worried about immersion, all societies have laws dealing with murder. So, if you aren't put in jail, or hung for your crime, isn't that breaking immersion as well.
The solution suggested by the OP works just fine in Anarchy Online, I'm still surprised that no more developers adopted it.
Also, about the OP title... there's a HUGE difference between "being afraid of" and "no wanting to deal with the tedium in what is just a leisure activity". I'm afraid of no one in a video game. That doesn't stop me from not wanting to go through the tedium I went through in the past in similar games.
Why didn't developpers fixed this open world PvP problem of ganking lower level players by simply : Not allowing a character to engage combat onto another character if this one has no chance of winning.
Because that makes no goddamn sense?
It's a valid design decision for any given game, but it takes away from immersion quite considerably, personally.
If you are worried about immersion, all societies have laws dealing with murder. So, if you aren't put in jail, or hung for your crime, isn't that breaking immersion as well.
To be honest if a low lvl player is getting ganked all he has to to do is say high lvl player ganking me in in xya area and i can bet money a pvp player will kill the ganker and let the low lvl go on his way.
Most pvp player pvp for challenge not to camp newb spawn areas
I mean I have been the guy porting helping newbs clear a area and looting griefers,,, and i am no knight in shining armor lol. I just don't kill or fight the weak and growing....
What about 5 against 1, what about when you are occupied with PvE and can't defend yourself... what about just finding a nice PvE game instead? or better yet a PvE server where the only PvP people are going to see is consensual duels.
It doesn't really matter if people are much lower level in my experience. People will complain about you attacking them no matter what. They need you to have a "reason" otherwise you are just a jerk out to ruin peoples fun.
Not having a crack at people, just honestly wondering - have you all actually played games with open world PVP? The reason I say this is because I did for over 4 years with Perfect World and here's a couple observations...
In the early days there was a fair bit of random killing. In fact through the quest line there was a particular area where you would reach the pvp level and that's where the pvpers would be waiting.
TOS rules included that it was a breach to continuously target one person which only resulted in them not getting to their quest points - ie, if they were being randomly and unfairly pvp'd then a support ticket would see the offender banned for 3 days. With this rule, random killing actually didn't disrupt the game too much at all. I was generally underpowered so was easily killed, but it didn't happen enough to bother me.
Also the pvp'ers quickly lost interest in just picking on people well under there level because it served no purpose whatsoever.
Next was the fact that it encouraged random guild encounters. In guild chat you would see "need help, being ganked by....." so a bunch of guild members would race to the area to engage in battle. The gankers guild members would turn up too and it was on. Good fun....
Next it allowed duelling and set encounters. You could arrange with say 3 of your members to meet with 3 of someone elses to test your skills.
Anyway, overall, my opinion was that the open world pvp added to the immersion of the game. Rather than just scoot around a couple mobs on the way somewhere you also needed to keep a lookout for what players were coming at you over the horizon.....
edit - and from reading the comments above I just remembered - you always had the choice of joining a pve server.....
Not having a crack at people, just honestly wondering - have you all actually played games with open world PVP? The reason I say this is because I did for over 4 years with Perfect World and here's a couple observations...
In the early days there was a fair bit of random killing. In fact through the quest line there was a particular area where you would reach the pvp level and that's where the pvpers would be waiting.
TOS rules included that it was a breach to continuously target one person which only resulted in them not getting to their quest points - ie, if they were being randomly and unfairly pvp'd then a support ticket would see the offender banned for 3 days. With this rule, random killing actually didn't disrupt the game too much at all. I was generally underpowered so was easily killed, but it didn't happen enough to bother me.
Also the pvp'ers quickly lost interest in just picking on people well under there level because it served no purpose whatsoever.
Next was the fact that it encouraged random guild encounters. In guild chat you would see "need help, being ganked by....." so a bunch of guild members would race to the area to engage in battle. The gankers guild members would turn up too and it was on. Good fun....
Next it allowed duelling and set encounters. You could arrange with say 3 of your members to meet with 3 of someone elses to test your skills.
Anyway, overall, my opinion was that the open world pvp added to the immersion of the game. Rather than just scoot around a couple mobs on the way somewhere you also needed to keep a lookout for what players were coming at you over the horizon.....
edit - and from reading the comments above I just remembered - you always had the choice of joining a pve server.....
ac1 dt... lineage 2.... then priv. servers.... tpw.... yeah try again
All of the 100% open world without restrictions games and/or servers failed so far. Yep, no exception. Every single of them failed big time, or ended as a niche game for like 20k players (which is equivalent of failing).
The game which worked? Those with restrictions. UO (with trammel) 17 years laters... Eve and its security levels. What else? Nothing. Every thing other FFA PvP MMORPG just tanked, and tanked badly.
exactly, open pvp is fine, and believe me nothing satisfies a pvper more than exacting revenge for a fallen guild mate then talking shit to their dead bodies for picking on a low level.
so the real issue is how do u stop a high lvl from killing a low level, if the low level does not have back up/ protection?...
just use the flag system that L2 had. simple, easy.
If you never heard of it continue reading, if u have just skip this part.
-any hit on another player will turn your player purple for 20 seconds.
-if anyone hits u back during this time, they too will turn purple and its all a fair game, no penalties to either.
-if you attack a player until they die and that player never attacked back, you will accumulate karma and your name will be red to indicate that.
-karma can be decreased by dying or by gaining exp
-if you die while still holding karma you have a chance to drop items in your inventory and for high offenders even equipped items.
so i dont need to explain why players in l2 would rather wait for a fair fight then to just kill you. having said that, plenty of players still just kill people because they know all the hiding spots to grind some monsters and safely return to zero karma before another player can show up to kill them.
this can get complicated as bigger guilds would literraly protect a fellow guildie that is red/ holding karma, while he would grind a few mobs. Or if you really trust your clan , just let them kill you and have them give back whatever items you may drop.
I'm not afraid of open world PVP, I'm "afraid" of it being forced on me. If anyone thinks something should be forced another, they need to be removed.
That's where I would think a lot of us draw the line, person enters the game only to realize it's "open world." After first death or two is likely to uninstall. That was my case with DF 1 & 2. Uninstalled them both after giving each a full week to play.
I'm just not that "into" trying to take someone else's stuff.
I live pretty easy in life and so I don't concern myself with another's well-being and that doesn't transfer into my gaming where "I wanna take your stuffs after killing you."
What defines "no chance of winning"? Levels are almost meaningless, your skills and build mean jack. What matters is player skill, and truth be told; you can'g gauge that.
Do you honestly think that player skill is more important than gear, build, and level in most MMOs? <chuckles>
Comments
ok.
In racing simulators for example ,peeps thinks that it is cool to compete agains other players and its just about cars.
In MMOs where we drive brutal barbarians and warlocks and such ,we are shooting rainbows from our eyes and love letters out of our noses against other players .
Why do people think that is should be like that ,where do they get that idea?
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Fixed. Don't lump us all into the same group because of a few bad experiences. I tend to leave low levels alone unless they're being stupid and trying to attack me or one of my low level friends (at this point, wasting their sorry ass is perfectly fine)
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
PvP, in my small mind, brings very little to the game play and causes a lot of grief. Class balance is now much more important and every character becomes homogenized because of PvP. Having to constantly look over my shoulder is not what I seek in MMOs. Others will differ greatly on this point, though.
I have encountered very few PvP players that actually "seek the almighty challenge" they often say they seek. Instead, the PvP player community is riddled with players who seek not a challenge, but rather a weaker opponent to kill. Weaker than the AI opponents found in MMOs. A lot of PvP players do not seek equality in a fight, but rather advantages that tip the scales in their favor be it gear, level, injured opponents, or numbers (gangs).
For me, MMOs are all about working together with other players, not against them. I also realize that many players like PvP and want that in their MMOs. In my opinion, PvP is just too toxic for what it brings to the game.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Its called opposite faction in many games / universe.
If Jedis and Siths "can" work together in your universe,so be it.
no its not just that they "can" in MMOs ,they are forced to.
I really dont care by myself about griefing because then someone is just at the wrong place at the wrong time,just like they are in fantasy literature or movies and such,what you are dreaming is somekind of world where everybody is at the right place at the right time,i think christians call it heaven.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Why must there be opposing faction players that you have to fight (usually when there is an advantage towards you)?
Answer me this:
Do you attack players who are better equipped than you?
How about of a higher level?
Will you jump on gangs of 2 or 3 other players to "test yourself" and your abilities?
Will you let a player opponent heal up from a previous fight before attacking?
If you answered yes to the above, you are a rare PvP player.
If you answered no, than I wonder why you want to PvP.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Nope.
Open pvp should be open. let the players punish griefers. Open pvp makes a game more complex, your allies mean something and how you treat others will always come back you.
Nothing like seeing a zerg break from with in and a new top ally form to break up again hehe.
Here we go with the winning again. If you win a PvP MMO is it over? Does everyone pack up their swords and battleaxes and go home?
Sheesh don't let the devs know this!!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
a,b,c,d i only PvP when i have reason for it,doesnt matter if there is 10000 players with better equipment against.
Point is the reason,which can be that im a jedi and opponents are siths.
*but the problem is that even in single player games i have a chance to choose ,but in MMOs i have only one option.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
One thing that always bugged me about City of Heroes was the massive amounts of crime happening on the streets. If I truly roleplayed, I would never have gotten to my missions as I helped every NPC getting mugged. I had to use selective blinders to get anywhere
Do you attack every Sith player you come across, or do you also use selective blinders? I do realize that intelligence factors in, too. No sense in dieing to a far superior opponent when one can just move on and improve themselves to fight at a later time
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
b) in really good MMORPG if i see some sith attacking our Jedi base. i would think like,he must be prepared because he is doing what he is doing,so maybe wait backup ,or let them stay here and i will attack their base and such but there is no many games like this where they allow people to think because its been decided in advance that we are supposed to fight or in worst case help each other
a)haa ,imagine if those NPC were played by real people,but lets call it positive PvP,sad thing is that there is no players who needs help because theres no negative PvP.
I think it feels better to help real people than computers :>
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Open world pvp means pvp anywhere. Free for all means attack anyone. They're two separate conditionals. You can have open world pvp with target restrictions. You can have FFA with location restrictions.
I think only non pvp area should be someones house
thats about it
The only thing that helps against ganking and it's consequences is the fear of getting ganked yourself. Mutual assured destruction, nuclear detterence, you name it.
All other things, like level ranges, enabling/disabling PVP for this char etc. not only limit the FFA open world PVP, which kinda defeats it's purpose, but also is not really working, because people will abuse it, and the ones truly seeking a challenge get shafted, too.
The only problem with this is that there always has to be someone who steps on the initial attackers toes, no matter who attacks who. And the bigger the injustice, the bigger the revenge has to be. If two guys who PVP regularly, and killed each other in different wars before fight, someone will end up dead. No hard feelings. If one side starts to ambush people who PVP, it's time for your guild and/or the law (if there is a player faction representing the law) to punish this. If someone who never even wielded a weapon gets killed, the whole server, even usually neutral sides have to punish it. If it ends up with the attacker being kicked from his guild, good. If he does it again and again, make *him* ragequit.
This is the only way (currently) that people that do not want to PVP can live with true FFA open world PVP. No hard limits, you can attack anyone at any time (except maybe safe zones, but if there is something like law enforcement with a strong presence in places that should be safe, you wouldn't even need that), but you better think at least twice before actually doing so, as it may be you who ragequits soon enough otherwise.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
If you are worried about immersion, all societies have laws dealing with murder. So, if you aren't put in jail, or hung for your crime, isn't that breaking immersion as well.
The solution suggested by the OP works just fine in Anarchy Online, I'm still surprised that no more developers adopted it.
Also, about the OP title... there's a HUGE difference between "being afraid of" and "no wanting to deal with the tedium in what is just a leisure activity". I'm afraid of no one in a video game. That doesn't stop me from not wanting to go through the tedium I went through in the past in similar games.
My computer is better than yours.
To be honest if a low lvl player is getting ganked all he has to to do is say high lvl player ganking me in in xya area and i can bet money a pvp player will kill the ganker and let the low lvl go on his way.
Most pvp player pvp for challenge not to camp newb spawn areas
I mean I have been the guy porting helping newbs clear a area and looting griefers,,, and i am no knight in shining armor lol. I just don't kill or fight the weak and growing....
What about 5 against 1, what about when you are occupied with PvE and can't defend yourself... what about just finding a nice PvE game instead? or better yet a PvE server where the only PvP people are going to see is consensual duels.
It doesn't really matter if people are much lower level in my experience. People will complain about you attacking them no matter what. They need you to have a "reason" otherwise you are just a jerk out to ruin peoples fun.
Not having a crack at people, just honestly wondering - have you all actually played games with open world PVP? The reason I say this is because I did for over 4 years with Perfect World and here's a couple observations...
In the early days there was a fair bit of random killing. In fact through the quest line there was a particular area where you would reach the pvp level and that's where the pvpers would be waiting.
TOS rules included that it was a breach to continuously target one person which only resulted in them not getting to their quest points - ie, if they were being randomly and unfairly pvp'd then a support ticket would see the offender banned for 3 days. With this rule, random killing actually didn't disrupt the game too much at all. I was generally underpowered so was easily killed, but it didn't happen enough to bother me.
Also the pvp'ers quickly lost interest in just picking on people well under there level because it served no purpose whatsoever.
Next was the fact that it encouraged random guild encounters. In guild chat you would see "need help, being ganked by....." so a bunch of guild members would race to the area to engage in battle. The gankers guild members would turn up too and it was on. Good fun....
Next it allowed duelling and set encounters. You could arrange with say 3 of your members to meet with 3 of someone elses to test your skills.
Anyway, overall, my opinion was that the open world pvp added to the immersion of the game. Rather than just scoot around a couple mobs on the way somewhere you also needed to keep a lookout for what players were coming at you over the horizon.....
edit - and from reading the comments above I just remembered - you always had the choice of joining a pve server.....
ac1 dt... lineage 2.... then priv. servers.... tpw.... yeah try again
All of the 100% open world without restrictions games and/or servers failed so far. Yep, no exception. Every single of them failed big time, or ended as a niche game for like 20k players (which is equivalent of failing).
The game which worked? Those with restrictions. UO (with trammel) 17 years laters... Eve and its security levels. What else? Nothing. Every thing other FFA PvP MMORPG just tanked, and tanked badly.
My computer is better than yours.
exactly, open pvp is fine, and believe me nothing satisfies a pvper more than exacting revenge for a fallen guild mate then talking shit to their dead bodies for picking on a low level.
so the real issue is how do u stop a high lvl from killing a low level, if the low level does not have back up/ protection?...
just use the flag system that L2 had. simple, easy.
If you never heard of it continue reading, if u have just skip this part.
-any hit on another player will turn your player purple for 20 seconds.
-if anyone hits u back during this time, they too will turn purple and its all a fair game, no penalties to either.
-if you attack a player until they die and that player never attacked back, you will accumulate karma and your name will be red to indicate that.
-karma can be decreased by dying or by gaining exp
-if you die while still holding karma you have a chance to drop items in your inventory and for high offenders even equipped items.
so i dont need to explain why players in l2 would rather wait for a fair fight then to just kill you. having said that, plenty of players still just kill people because they know all the hiding spots to grind some monsters and safely return to zero karma before another player can show up to kill them.
this can get complicated as bigger guilds would literraly protect a fellow guildie that is red/ holding karma, while he would grind a few mobs. Or if you really trust your clan , just let them kill you and have them give back whatever items you may drop.
= Scent to bed =
I'm not afraid of open world PVP, I'm "afraid" of it being forced on me. If anyone thinks something should be forced another, they need to be removed.
That's where I would think a lot of us draw the line, person enters the game only to realize it's "open world." After first death or two is likely to uninstall. That was my case with DF 1 & 2. Uninstalled them both after giving each a full week to play.
I'm just not that "into" trying to take someone else's stuff.
I live pretty easy in life and so I don't concern myself with another's well-being and that doesn't transfer into my gaming where "I wanna take your stuffs after killing you."
Discuss. Reason. Society.
Become a Dragon. Take your world back.
Do you honestly think that player skill is more important than gear, build, and level in most MMOs? <chuckles>